A Break For Delinquent Taxpayers

[MJS]

I saw this in my local paper today. Can't seem to find a link for it, so seeing that its a short article, I'll just post it as written. If I come across a link later, I will post that. Here is the article:

Hartford- About 75,000 delinquent Connecticut taxpayers are being sent letters from the state, offering them a deal. Under the Ct. tax settlement incentive program, the state Dept. of Revenue Services, is is offering to reduce outstanding interest by 50% and eliminate all penalties, if a taxpayer settles its debt with the state by Dec. 15. The state says almost all taxes administered by DRS are eligible except the Motor Carrier Tax and taxes levied as part of the Int. Fuel Tax Agreement. Letters go out this week.

So, while part of me thinks this is a bad idea, the other part says may as well do it, because what other options do they have, to get their money? If the delinquent payers don't have much, what is the state going to take? They take a house or their car, and now what happens to the person? They're homeless, sleeping on the street? Toss them in jail, and then you'll have people complaining that the jails are over crowded.

I suppose this is better than nothing. At least the delinquents are coughing up part of what they owe. Thats the least they could do, while the rest of us pay in full.

Thoughts?

 

[Gordon Nore]

I suppose this is better than nothing. At least the delinquents are coughing up part of what they owe. Thats the least they could do, while the rest of us pay in full.

Thoughts?

I don't think there is any way of doing this that doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouth of people who pay their taxes in full and on time. Is Garnishment an option?

 

[MJS]

I don't think there is any way of doing this that doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouth of people who pay their taxes in full and on time.

I agree.

Is Garnishment an option?

No idea. I was going to suggest that, but as I suggested in my post, seems like anything thats done to get the full amount of money, is going to have some sort of side effect. Lets look at this a few different ways:

We could have group A, which would be a well to do family. Income levels with 1 or 2 people working are pretty high. So we have your people who make alot of cash, but skirt paying. Attaching wages probably wouldn't be a bad idea for them, as the fallout would probably be minimal.

Group B is a low income family, with 1 or 2 people working min. wage jobs. The attitude of people like that is probably going to be, "Well, you can't get blood from a stone, so...." and rightfully so. So you have 2 people with say $9 or $10/hr jobs, if that, and now we attach their wages. Result: Now they can't pay rent, they get kicked to the street, can't pay light, phone, heat, gets shut off.

So, we're right back to square one again.

 

[Big Don]

Rangel rule...

 

[MJS]

Rangel rule...

What??

 

[Big Don]

if you are a politician you don't have to pay taxes, if you are in the correct party, see Charley Rangel...

 

[MJS]

if you are a politician you don't have to pay taxes, if you are in the correct party, see Charley Rangel...

Ahh..ok...thanks for the clarification.